To be upset about ‘university blind’ recruitment

If an Oxbridge graduate doesn't show up as better on blind testing then surely they aren't better?

Well it depends on your field but in technology (where I am) there's a surprisingly large number of people paid £££ to make decisions costing millions of dollars... on things that they have zero understanding of.
I wouldn't say that they are 'thick', promoting big talkers who have no idea of how to do the actual work is endemic across many industries but it does get irritating seeing people make short-term decisions.

However, the higher up you go, the more you realise that very few people actually care about doing a good job. Something that cuts costs etc in the short terms gets a pat on the back, promotions etc and by the time the chickens come home to roost the exec has taken their rewards and gone, leaving the mess for another poor bugger to clean.

When I was in IT consulting I wasn't complaining, kept me in business returning to fix successive messes but as an internal employee now it's really annoying. So much waste.

That's another reason btw why solely 'academic and logical' people have such a hard time. They can't quite deal with the hidden agendas and politics, don't know which strings to pull. To them the right decision is blatantly obvious and anybody doing otherwise is just dumb. No further investigation required...

Surely the employers will still be looking at the A level grades though?

Again, why? What relevance do you think A level grades have to a graduate? Genuinely interested as most universities do not think they have any relevance at all…

I think you probably could do with a bit more introspection really. I get what you are saying but the "we're all intellectual titans but our customers are thickos" isn't a great look if that is what you are telling prospective candidates.

Yeah, I've interviewed quite a few like that. Never hired any.

Quite frankly though having attended an elite university, most people know that the degree itself isn't enough. I thought that myself at the start, but my more clued up peers quickly disabused me of that notion.

The ones that keep their head down seem to be in one of two categories - those that couldn't keep up (and so would really have been better off at a 'lower tier' university).
And those that didn't know, usually because of their backgrounds. They thought a good degree would be enough. For them even getting to university is an achievement and they didn't realise that loads of people have degrees these days. Also maybe they felt a bit left out, so didn't socialise much with the 'high achieving all rounder' crowd.

OP's son is in great danger of falling into the second category with his mother's attitude.

The true mark of brilliance is not whether 'you' understand something, it's whether you can make 'others' understand 😇

Even the highest performer can only work so many hours a day.

But someone who can enable others, and get the best out of them has no limits, and a much higher multiplier.

That's why, even in my famously introverted profession lone geniuses are eschewed in favour of people who are capable 'enough', but with excellent softer skills.

I work in recruitment and the thing that stands graduates apart from the rest are a) their attitude and motivation and b) their work experiences

The type of university or grade you get might get you an interview; but if you haven’t got anything interesting to talk about at interview, it’ll be a no.

To relate this to real life, my DH got a first from
Oxford and really struggled to get a job, because he had nothing to talk about at interview apart from his university experience. How does this stand him out from the crowd? It doesn’t. In fact, anyone that shares an example about how they worked well in a group at uni to demonstrate their team work usually scores low, because EVERYONE has had that experience.

As a parent, I am going to encourage my children to get lots of life experience. This will include working from the age of 15 and doing tons of volunteering. This will stand them in good stead, regardless of what uni they go to.

I see what you are saying and I understand your worry, but the point of uni isn't to get a job, is it? It's to develop and to be a more rounded person and to gain new skills. Especially as your son is going to do a degree in history, unless he becomes an historian, in which case they will definitely be looking at his uni, then other skills will come into play that will be apparent on his application. Have confidence in your child that he will not need the boost.

I'm guessing you have never been to university, people who have been to Cambridge, Oxford etc, tend to wear it lightly, you will come to learn this.

You deserve all the flak you are getting for being so unpleasant though.

I have interviewed students who were remarkably sniffy about students who aimed lower than a first. They struggled working with less than brilliant people - which of course they said they wouldn't find at our organisation so it wouldn't be a problem. That was true, our team are brilliant - but we have to work with clients who come in all shapes and sizes and working with people who are less than brilliant is one of the reasons we have a job. Arrogance is a trait no one wants to work with!

A degree does not guarantee you a good job

You also need good soft skills too

Good communication

Depending on what job you are applying for

No I don’t think you are. I agree that’s a bloody good uni and surely they should take that into consideration

Also @twinklybumface don't get me wrong - I do agree that degree requirements can be ridiculous.
But it's a vicious cycle - we want loads of people to go to university - so to filter them down jobs start having higher and higher requirements, and it continues.
I've seen receptionist roles requiring a degree.

In my field (tech) it's a bit easier because I'd expect to see a technical portfolio. You don't need a degree for common sense roles like project management etc but people can come to this with other experience. They just can't get onto our 'graduate scheme', which is for graduates.

I trained at a big 4, and it was almost always the Oxbridge students who failed the first round of exams. I think the firm wanted to take Oxbridge graduates so overlooked whether they were totally suitable.

Surely the employers will still be looking at the A level grades though?

No, the point of a 'university jobs board' is that it's only visible to students - a curated list of opportunities .
Otherwise, why bother? They could look on all the general websites, just like everyone else.

Also requiring a degree is not 'discriminatory', as it's a work-related characteristic and something in the employee's control. Discrimination relates to protected characteristics such as age, sex, race.

As @Horsetoday stated recruiting is time consuming, especially for entry-level roles. A degree is a useful metric, precisely because so many people have one! Even then the number of candidates to sift runs into hundreds.

You don't need to go to university to get a degree, many people get one later in life because they find that it places a ceiling on their career progression. Ultimately, no matter 'how good' someone is, unless they're a specialist in a very niche field or have an industry relevant qualification they'll very likely be competing against someone else with a degree, who will get hired instead. It's not about the individual, it's about the competition.

@dogsanddolphines no, that's a university acknowledging that not all jobs require a degree.

They're institutions of education. To educate people. Not to shut people out without a degree. I went to a top university with 1 to 1 tuition etc they also hire people without degrees. You can still respect a university that does this as it IS a discriminatory policy to only hire graduates in roles that don't require a degree. No one is not going to attend that university in future as a result of a non discriminatory job advert!!

Surely the correct comparison here is that we should look at the school an applicant got their GCSE and A levels from over what grades they got. If they went to a better school they must be a better candidate, right? Yes of course, someone at a bog standard comprehensive may have got an A* in maths but they won't have been taught as well or as deeply as a student at a top public school... and so on and so forth.

Yes of course there are differences here in that the exam boards are not the same as how degrees are awarded, but there is a principle here of allowing the reputation of an institution to substitute for the ability of a particular candidate. There is simply no justification for allowing such bias into a recruitment process - it is lazy if nothing else.

We live in demonstrably unequal society that had got more unequal over the last decade. Even the fate of Cambridge and Oxford graduates seems to be determined more by their upbringing prior to university than their time there - that is how unequal our society is. Many of those elitist jobs are not just filled by solely Oxbridge graduates, but Oxbridge graduates who have been to certain schools.

Luckily some companies are taking the enlightened view that actually getting the best candidates for their organisations needs a system that judges individuals on their own merits and recognises that unconscious bias needs tackling.

You're not unreasonable at all, its okay to be sad. But yeah thats just how it is, it is probably better to improve equality overall but there's nothing wrong with feeling your son has been hard done by.

The majority of what students learn at uni is nothing compared to what they learn on the job so this is a silly comment. The only thing they do is create division, elitism and entitlement. As a graduate recruiter (ad tech) we do not care what university they went to, we care about the type of person they are, how willing they are to learn and how they’ll fit the team. Often we find students from ‘top’ universities do not have the empathy, people skills or respect for colleagues and rarely last beyond probation. I’d take a student with a 2:2 & empathy from Herts over a student with a 1st and a rod up their backside from Cambridge any day.

The point was the advert being on a university jobs board - if degrees aren't required then what does the uni exist for?

Requiring a degree is a quick and easy way to sift - we don't have the resources to interview everyone, recruiting is very time-consuming. Without a doubt degree I'm quite sure a bright numerate, confident candidate without a degree could do the job - but we're talking needle in a haystack - you have to start looking somewhere.

I wish I could give everyone a chance - it's not possible, by it's very nature a recruitment programme needs to discriminate against some groups or you'd never get through the candidates. The earlier University responded in a way that none of their grads got the opportunity. They seemed to want to run a generalist jobs board for every one degree or not - it's an interesting strategy to take - to devalue to product they are selling.

There is so much more to get from a uni than just a job offer at the end.

The professors and lecturers you meet. The quality of the learning and the understanding you get of topics. Plus enthusiasm. The quality of opportunities for placements, volunteer work, year in industry, department trips. Quality of facilities like labs. Different unis also will maybe also allow extra learning and being able to do modules in other subjects.
(I was fortunate to be able to study oceanography, along side my degree in astrophysics. The oceanography was amazing, the centre was world class and such interesting material, great fellow students from all over the world and very passionate and intelligent lecturers).

I would argue being at a good uni makes a huge difference to who you are by the end of it.
Filled with amazing opportunities, intelligent and open minded people leading the way in their fields, a more diverse mix of students (this is so great to meet people from all over the world and really learn about and from them).

Its not just about the piece of paper, it's about what you learn, how you learn, who you learn with, it forms you as a person and can really help you develop who you are.

Yes sure you can go to a less challenging uni and just party, but I would argue being around so many inspiring people and spending time following your passions rather than pushing self progress aside and just partying for a few years, would be a strong argument for a good uni.

My job offer didn't even depend on my degree in the end, but it doesn't mean that is really the case. My time at university formed who I am and how I am. And it's an asset to me, I can call on and how I feel about myself. This is worth more than me being valuable to one company. It's how I view myself and how my life went. And in turn this gives me confidence and happiness which inevitably gets carried with me subconsciously where ever I go. Whether it be job interviews or just general life :)

I agree - we don't look at GCSE or A-level grades - it's ancient history. Seeing a CV that's heavily weighted to school achievements with very little to add afterwards would make me worry that the candidate was hot-housed by school/parents.

@Horsetoday do you not ever think perhaps the earlier uni was right? My dh got 100% in an a level maths exam. He took further maths even though his school didn't offer it, they put it on specially for him in an ofsted inadequate school. He has no degree, works as an analyst now on way more than £40k. Some companies won't touch him because he has no degree but every company he's worked for (and these are very large companies) he's exceeded and been promoted more than others with degrees because he has a gift for maths that works in his favour in his job. You may have missed the chance to hire people like him through such discrimination that jobs like an analyst require a degree.

Of course some jobs and fields do require them but a lot of companies miss out on talent because they're too focussed on that one element and not necessarily for the right reasons.

Of course university should be taken account in the hiring process for many jobs. In the same way that degree outcome and GCSE/A level performance should.

What makes you think that A level performance (let alone GCSEs) should be taken into account in the hiring process several years later? Achievement at A level is totally different from degree achievement as the playing field at school is far from level. After 3 or 4 years of study where students attend the same classes, have equal access to tutors and to resources such as libraries, that playing field has been levelled somewhat.

As I said upthread, most universities don't ask for your A level grades when applying for post-graduate degrees, so clearly they don't think they are particularly relevant…

I'm sure all careers dept would like to think that - but as an objective observer I have been shocked by how different their standards are.
We tried to advertise with one uni for an analyst position offering £40k a year, - we wanted a numerate degree with at least one year of work experience. They insisted we remove the degree requirement - (they thought it was discriminating against those who don't have a degree - this is an advert on a Uni jobs board) and the requirement to have any experience (age discrimination).
We withdrew and advertised with quite a few other Unis who gladly accepted our advert.